Originally posted by **edzob** April 19, 2022
Later to be transferred into issues.
Chapter 1.0/1.1
1. Rewrite paragraph 1 of H1. so that it is clear what is statement by Heraclitus or what is your view on this take.
2. I choose to combine url in footnote with APA (to have great UX of direct click, with the completeness of APA site reference).
3. As far as I know it is not common to write a paragraph 1.1 Author. My advice would be to move this to the appendix (as I also did). The Why of the paper should be made clear in chapter 1. I would use 1.1. To draw a picture of the relevance (the famous “so what” of steven).
Chapter 1.2
1. “ Chapter 5 describes the found attributes from the literature that can be success factors.” -> Chapter 4?
2. “In Chapter 2” -> in chapter 2 ? (capatilization)
3. The content of chapter 1.2 comes without introduction for the reader. What is EA etc etc.
4. Section 1.2 needs some love in readability. You can mimize the content of this section :)
Chapter 1.3. - Public sector
1. See overall comment on writing Author xxx states …
2. This sentence needs to be rephrased “The national governments because they are responsible for policy making while the local governments are responsible for executing most of those policies.“
Chapter 1.4 - introduction of AF
1. See overall comment on writing Author xxx states …
2. This is I think not enough text for E.A. I would add a few introductory text on why this matters. EA is a core piece of your research.
3.
Chapter 1.5. Introduction of the concept of af
1. Starting the first sentence of AF with the definition of a black swan is not ok for a random reader. The reader that already knows is also not aided by this definition. For which reader are you writing what? I think that reorganisign a few paragraphs would already help.
2.
Chapter 1.6. - problem statement
1. It is not clear why the dutch public sector (and esp dutch),
2. It is not clear why AF matters to the dutch public sector
3. It is not clear why EA and AF are interlinked in their effect on the dutch public sector.
4. “The current Body of Knowledge (BoK) of EA and Complexity Science does contain some research on antifragility on application and information architectures but not on EA.“ → Says who?
Chapter 1.7 - research subject
1. Perhaps 1.7 (research subject) should be the first paragraph of 1.6 (problem statement)
Chapter 1.8 - research question
1. “Figure 1.2 shows the conceptual research model” → better is to not direct to the image. Best is to write a statement and then do a reference to the image as visualisation of the statement. In the end the text should be readable and understood without the image.
2. Figure 1.2 (conceptual research model) .. thinker lines, larger font size?
3. Position figure 1.2 after the section where is referenced (section 1.8 research question)
4. “What is the literature saying about the public sector?” -> I am not certain if “saying” is the right verb.
5. “What is the literature saying about the public sector?” -> public sector or dutch public sector?
6. “. What are the possible success factors of antifragile?” -> of or for?
Chapter 1.9 - Research Relevance
1. Perhaps it is more logical to move this section up. As a summary of AF + EA + Dutch Public Sector.
2. “ For some examples of stressors which are relevant to the public sector see Figure 1.3.“ -> See previous remarks on images. You can for example state “The public sector is exposed to various stressors as for example Cybercrime, New regulations, Energy crisis and many more (see figure 1.3)” or something along these lines.
3. “. Governmental organisations and agencies in the Dutch public” -> I would make a new paragraph of this.
4. I would add iBestuur to the reference and provide it with some context (for those, like me, that do not know it).
5. “The relevance of this research is not only about adding to the BoK of EA and Complexity Science but also, in the context of social responsibility, to share the outcome with the public sector for further study and use.” → Split up the statements, and then validate in your mind if these statements are augmented in the previous paragraphs
6. “the context of social responsibility, to share the outcome with the public sector for further study and use.“ → this is a personal statement. I would write it down as such.
Discussed in https://github.com/JRBliekendaal/master-thesis/discussions/138